Meditation log, Mar 9 – Mar 19

Friday, March 9th. 30 minutes. Attempted to meditate while lying on my back, figuring that I wouldn’t fall asleep since I’d just had my morning caffeine. Not very successful. I was maybe a little too relaxed, my thoughts wandered and I had difficulties feeling my breath in order to concentrate on it.

Sunday, March 11th. 20 minutes. Attempted to meditate in the morning, noticed that I was basically just falling asleep, then took a cold shower and tried again. Felt nice, though not particularly exciting.

Monday, March 12th. 50 minutes. I had the timer on 30 minutes, but I just ignored it at first. Somebody had recommended drinking green tea about half an hour before meditating, so I gave it a try. I only had bagged tea at hand, but I put two bags in the same cup to get a stronger effect.

Something happened, though I am not sure what it was. I ended up concentrating on various feelings of pain and bidding them welcome – not in a masochistic way, but rather in such a way where I genuinely welcomed pain and didn’t consider it something that would cause suffering in the first place. I dug up memories of various situations where I’d been embarassed or ashamed, and each such memory seemed to make the state of concentration deeper. It felt nice.

From this point on, each of my meditation sessions has been preceded by a cup of green tea, made using 2-4 tea bags.

Tuesday, March 13th. 60 minutes. I sat meditating with my fingers crossed, and at one point relatively early on I freaked out as my fingers started feeling incorporal. They also felt like they were drifting to be inside each other. Then the frightened surprise pulled me out of that state, and although I tried to reach it again, I could not.

Wednesday, March 14th. ~45 minutes. I started gradually losing feeling in my fingers and feet, after which the numbness spread to the rest of my body. Only my head and part of my chest (where I was too conscious of my breathing) retained feeling. Then at some point I realized that although large parts of my body were without feeling, I still remained aware of where the borders of my body parts were. After I realized this, feeling pretty quickly returned to them.

After that, the lack of feeling came and went for the rest of my meditation session. There were moments when I noticed, noted, and let go of feelings whose existence I hadn’t even realized before. I started to get a small inkling of what the complete cessation of sensation that’s said to come with the deepest meditative states might be like. I became aware of having a sense of time, a feeling of presence in my own head, and a feeling of moving my attention around. I attempted to focus on those to make them vanish as well, but was for now unable to do so.

I also felt really good and happy for the rest of the day.

Thursday, March 15th. 20 minutes of meditation, bathroom break, 40 minutes of meditation. At the end of the second meditation session, I got a clear feeling of something happening, but I don’t know what it was. After it had happened, I got a sense of this session’s leassons had now been learned. It told me that I could stop meditating now, since I wasn’t going to learn anything more before the next time. My concentration seemed to grow considerably more shallow at the same time.

Whether that feeling actually meant anything or whether it was just a trick of my brain is an interesting question. I’m presuming that it was just a random feeling: to use a computer metaphor, meditation practice seems to be about exploiting some accidential glitch in the brain which likely never played an actual evolutionary role. Given that, whatever subconscious system produced that “this lesson is now over” sensation is probably just as clueless about what was going than the rest of me was.

This turned out to be a “let’s practice meditation / concentration all the time, everywhere” day. Pretty much no matter where I went or what I did, I used the opportunity to do concentration practice and dismiss unwanted thoughts or feelings. When waiting for a bus, for instance, I picked the feeling of impatience and pretty much just got rid of it. I started thinking that if somebody could learn to do this reliably and for any feeling / emotion, it would let them have complete control over their own mind, only suffering from the fears and dislikes that they wanted to suffer from. I don’t know whether that’s actually possible, but the possibility is exciting to think about.

Saturday, March 17th. 60 minutes. At one point, I noticed that my meditative state was failing to deepen because I was clearly waiting for it to deepen, and the feeling of expectation messed things up. I then tried to rid myself of the expectation, and I was kinda successful, though through an unexpected route: by visualizing and looping in my head the Sean Den Förste Banan video. (Yes, you may point and laugh at me now.) As I did so, I felt my concentration clearly deepen.

After a while of doing that, I switched to counting numbers. Suddenly I realized that I was not experiencing them as raw numbers, but as my age. For instance, when I visualized in my head the number 15, I also saw images of myself when I was 15. As I got past my current age, the images grew more abstract. As I approached age 100 I felt/saw myself get older, but then apparently radical life extension was invented and my body stopped getting frail. Past age 100, there was a feeling of having lived for a long time and having seen everything, and of living in a drastically different world than pretty much anyone who wasn’t as old. I think I died, presumably in an accident, around age 180 or so, but I kept counting until I reached 300. “While I was dead” I think there was a feeling of stillness and a lack of motion, possibly combined with a sense of things continuing to happen all around me.

Eventually I concluded that nothing more was happening and started exploring impermanence by studying the various sensations of my body and trying to break them into smaller and smaller components. Most of it I did to the sensations from my feet. Soon my feet started feeling odd, as I had no idea of whether my muscles were relaxed or tense – they felt like they could have been both.

Monday, March 19th. 65 minutes. Mildly altered states of consciousness, nothing particularly special. Again, I noticed that I was expecting something interesting to happen, and that expectation prevented me from just being a neutral observer of my own mind. I tried to get rid of the feeling of expectation, but then I realized that this too implied an expectation of change – trying to will something gone involves expecting that it will be gone. So then I tried to just let go of it without specificially trying to let go of it. (Yeah, I can’t explain it any better than that.) Not too good at that yet – I think I might have had momentary successes, but each time they caused an “oh, I did it, something’s happening now” feeling which ruined it. I’ll just have to keep practicing.

Since last Wednesday, meditation has frequently led to me losing feeling in my fingers and feet, but I haven’t experienced the almost-whole-body lack of feeling again.

Obligatory social links

Follow me on:

Google+ Posts

Kaj Sotala:
Every now and then one sees accusations of plagiarism, in e.g. design: frequently, the evidence is just "these two designs are way too similar for it to be chance", based on an appeal to common sense. And yes, no doubt many of the accusations are correct, and it was indeed a case of plagiarism.

But those news always make me wonder - in a world with almost 8 billion people, how complicated and similar do any two designs have to be before we can be sure that it was indeed plagiarism? With this many people, it would be surprising if people working independently and with no knowledge of each other didn't ever accidentally create designs that looked "too similar for it to be an accident". (especially since different designers aren't developing their designs purely at random, but are rather working under similar constraints and goals)

With design, if that happens, then we might never be able to say for sure whether it was independent creation or whether someone did plagiarize from the other. Now this article's example of something that would also feel too implausible for it to be chance, if we didn't have evidence to the contrary, is from photography. There, enough information did exist in the two photos that the two people who took them could verify that they were indeed different shots. But the next time that I see a side-by-side comparison of two designs, one of them claimed to be a plagiarism of the other, I'm probably going to think "yeah, those two do look so similar that one of them has to be stolen... but that's what I would have thought of those lighthouse shots too."

>... there was one comment that mentioned that I had stolen the image from another New England photographer, Eric Gendon. After letting the commenter know that it was indeed my image and that I possess the original RAW file, I headed over to the other photographers page and was blown away. We had what looked like the exact same image, taken at the exact millisecond in time, from what looked like the same exact location and perspective.How Two Photographers Unknowingly Shot the Same Millisecond in Time

Kaj Sotala:
In the Star Trek universe, we are told that it's really hard to make genuine artificial intelligence, and that Data is so special because he's a rare example of someone having managed to create one.

But this doesn't seem to be the best hypothesis for explaining the evidence that we've actually seen. Consider:

- In the TOS episode "The Ultimate Computer", the Federation has managed to build a computer intelligent enough to run the Enterprise by its own, but it goes crazy and Kirk has to talk it into self-destructing.- In TNG, we find out that before Data, Doctor Noonian Soong had built Lore, an android with sophisticated emotional processing. However, Lore became essentially evil and had no problems killing people for his own benefit. Data worked better, but in order to get his behavior right, Soong had to initially build him with no emotions at all. (TNG: "Datalore", "Brothers")- In the TNG episode "Evolution", Wesley is doing a science project with nanotechnology, accidentally enabling the nanites to become a collective intelligence which almost takes over the ship before the crew manages to negotiate a peaceful solution with them.- The holodeck seems entirely capable of running generally intelligent characters, though their behavior is usually restricted to specific roles. However, on occasion they have started straying outside their normal parameters, to the point of attempting taking over the ship. (TNG: "Elementary, Dear Data") It is also suggested that the computer is capable of running an indefinitely long simulation which is good enough to make an intelligent being believe in it being the real universe. (TNG: "Ship in a Bottle")- The ship's computer in most of the series seems like it's potentially quite intelligent, but most of the intelligence isn't used for anything else than running holographic characters. - In the TNG episode "Booby Trap", a potential way of saving the Enterprise from the Disaster Of The Week would involve turning over control of the ship to the computer: however, the characters are inexplicably super-reluctant to do this.- In Voyager, the Emergency Medical Hologram clearly has general intelligence: however, it is only supposed to be used in emergency situations rather than running long-term, its memory starting to degrade after a sufficiently long time of continuous use. The recommended solution is to reset it, removing all of the accumulated memories since its first activation. (VOY: "The Swarm")

There seems to be a pattern here: if an AI is built to carry out a relatively restricted role, then things work fine. However, once it is given broad autonomy and it gets to do open-ended learning, there's a very high chance that it gets out of control. The Federation witnessed this for the first time with the Ultimate Computer. Since then, they have been ensuring that all of their AI systems are restricted to narrow tasks or that they'll only run for a short time in an emergency, to avoid things getting out of hand. Of course, this doesn't change the fact that your AI having more intelligence is generally useful, so e.g. starship computers are equipped with powerful general intelligence capabilities, which sometimes do get out of hand.

Soong's achievement with Data was not in building a general intelligence, but in building a general intelligence which didn't go crazy. (And before Data, he failed at that task once, with Lore.)

The original design for the game didn't have warfare, diplomacy, or technological advancement; all of that was added as the design was iterated on:

> Like Railroad Tycoon before it, Civilization was born out of Meier’s abiding fascination with SimCity. [...] Railroad Tycoon had attempted to take some of the appeal of SimCity and “gameify” it by adding computerized opponents and a concrete ending date. It had succeeded magnificently on those terms, but Meier wasn’t done building on what Wright had wrought. In fact, his first conception of Civilization cast it as a much more obvious heir to SimCity than even Railroad Tycoon had been. Whereas SimCity had let the player build her own functioning city, Civilization would let her build a whole network of them, forming a country — or, as the game’s name would imply, a civilization.

To think, most 4X games today, they tend to just copy Civ’s basic formula, including elements like the city-building, warfare, diplomacy, technology…

And then the guys making the first Civ had no idea that this would become a genre, just putting together systems that seemed to make sense to them. If they hadn’t thought of the technology idea, for instance, would anyone else have come up with it? Today, it feels like such an obvious idea that surely someone would eventually have made a game that also had you developing technology throughout the ages… but would they have?» The Game of Everything, Part 1: Making Civilization The Digital Antiquarian

> If someone says “in Rotherham the police ignored evidence that these people were assaulting children, for politically motivated reasons”, then if I’m responsible I will go check how often the police ignore evidence that people are assaulting children for absolutely no reason at all and eventually I will probably conclude that police just frequently ignore evidence of serious crimes.

> I have encountered communities where everyone constantly talked at Rotherham in exhausting detail but they had absolutely no idea about any of the other cases I mentioned.

> I mean that. They just had no idea. You ask them “can you name a csa case where there isn’t evidence that the police could have acted ten years sooner than they did?” and they are genuinely surprised that in the case of Larry Nassar, in the case of Jerry Sandusky, in the case of Jimmy Saville, in the case of Catholic clergy, the police could have acted ten years earlier and didn’t. They’ve heard about Rotherham, and only Rotherham, and because their sources were so carefully selective in which horrible things they let their readers learn of, the readers end up thinking that something uniquely went wrong in Rotherham, instead of realizing that police just don’t actually typically do anything about evidence of sexual abuse of children until years and sometimes decades after they could have.

> As far as I can tell, in every single csa scandal that is uncovered, there’s abundant evidence that it could have been uncovered a lot sooner, and the police got reports and failed to act. This seems to be very nearly universal. I’m not sure why it’s true. I find it disturbing that it’s true. The fact that so many people cover up sexual assault of children is something that has caused me to seriously ask myself “am I the kind of person who would do that? Why not? Those people would presumably have answered that question ‘of course not’, and they were wrong, so how do I make sure I’m not wrong?” And I think it’s a good idea for other people to ask themselves that too! But the people who talk endlessly in horrifying detail about Rotherham and are totally clueless that this is a general feature of sexual abuse cases…. they’re working from a disastrously bad model of the world, and I am pretty sure that a lot of sexual abuse might pass them by because they’ve managed to end up with such a wrong and distorted impression of what the problem is. (If you think the problem is “political correctness”, of course you fight political correctness. If it turns out that actually, near-universally police do not act on these accusations, that points to a completely different solution and all of your political-correctness fighting is actively worse than useless.) Re the TERF thing, I think you underestimate the...

Kaj Sotala:
> ... we hypothesized that extreme forms of music such as heavy metal, which is associated with antisocial behavior, irreligiosity, and deviation from the norm is less prevalent in the regions with higher prevalence of pathogenic stress. [...] Results showed that parasite stress negatively predicts the number of heavy metal bands. However, no relationship was found between the intensity of the music and parasite stress.